Standing Committee E

[Mr. Derek Conway in the Chair]

Housing Bill

Schedule 9 - Buildings which are not HMOs (except in Part 1)

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 242, in
schedule 9, page 183, line 17, leave out paragraph 4.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 243, in 
schedule 9, page 183, line 21, leave out paragraph 5.
 Amendment No. 244, in 
schedule 9, page 183, line 38, leave out paragraph 7.
 Amendment No. 237, in 
clause 192, page 135, line 5, leave out paragraph (c).
 New clause 18B—Meaning of house in multiple occupation— 
No. NC18B, to move the following Clause:— 
 'The Secretary of State may by regulation set out the meaning of ''house in multiple occupation''.'.

Matthew Green: The amendments challenge the Minister to explain why various buildings are exempted from the category of houses in multiple occupation and how he intends to use regulations to describe HMOs in future. Amendment No. 242 is a probing amendment. It would delete paragraph 4 to schedule 9, which will allow the Minister to set up regulations to exempt buildings from being HMOs. We want the right hon. Gentleman to confirm that he does not have any secret intention to exempt a huge number of buildings from that category. We are worried that the provision would allow him to make a substantial number of exemptions if he so wished, which could, in effect, negate the effects of the Bill.
 When the Government consulted about HMO licensing in 1999, they favoured a broad definition of HMOs with specific clearly delineated exemptions from the licensing scheme. They stated: 
''The Government favours the second approach with a broad definition and specific exclusions and would propose to use a definition based on the Scottish one.''
 There is concern that the wide-ranging regulation-making power afforded under paragraph 4 could be used to create a more narrow definition of an HMO. One example of that could be the use of subsequent regulations to exclude from the HMO definition dwellings contracted by the National Asylum Support Service on the ground that the standards are regulated via the contracts between NASS and its main service providers. Such a move could result in some extremely vulnerable people living in dangerous housing conditions. There is already evidence that asylum seekers have been placed in substandard 
 private rented accommodation and that the current regulatory regime for such accommodation is ineffective in monitoring and enforcing standards. I want reassurances from the Minister that the Government will not make much use, if any, of paragraph 4. Hopefully, it exists only to deal with unforeseen circumstances and the Government do not see any likelihood of using the power in the next few years. 
 Amendment No. 243 would delete paragraph 5. I am sure that members of the Committee have received e-mails and letters about that provision, which covers the exclusion of university halls of residence from the licensing of HMOs. The Minister will say that the whole purpose of licensing is so that the landlords are known, and that they are seen to be fit and proper persons and are brought under the regime; and that is not necessary for university halls of residence because we know the landlords and they are responsible public bodies. 
 If the landlords are responsible public bodies, they will have nothing to fear from licensing. It will hardly be a hugely onerous duty for a university to register itself as a landlord, and registration would at least provide a framework under which to operate. It is odd that universities will be the nearest things to private owners specifically exempted from the regulations, because they operate in a grey area. It is apt today that we should talk about whether universities are private or public institutions. 
 It is for the Minister to flesh out the Government's thinking on that, because organisations like Shelter and the National Union of Students are quite concerned. It is feared that universities want to dispose of their halls of residence by selling them off, and some universities have already indicated their desire to do so. There might be some danger of that happening if licensing were an onerous burden. However, the licence would not be so onerous: it would not be the thing that tips a university over the edge into selling off its halls of residence. Some universities regard their halls of residence as liabilities; perhaps they should not do so, and perhaps there is a case for not allowing them too much independence in future. That, however, is a different debate. 
 There are good reasons why university halls of residence should be brought into the framework, not least because it would mean that there are procedures for an outside body to monitor and enforce standards. I know that probably only one good example has been cited of a university housing students in dreadfully poor conditions, and that the Minister will stand up and say ''There isn't a problem, so why are we dealing with it?'' However, that argument works both ways: if there is no problem, licensing will not be an onerous task for the universities. 
 There are some grounds to set regulations in this area. In fact, as I am sure the Minister knows, the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions said that 
''the Government should return to the definition of an HMO proposed in its 1999 consultation paper. We do not see why educational establishments . . . should be exempted. If a broad 
definition of HMO were adopted, certain categories or types of HMO could . . . be exempted from specific . . . controls, such as . . . licensing.''
 The Select Committee does not see why educational establishments should be exempted. 
 There are some problems with university HMOs, although nothing on the scale of private operators. The form of licensing chosen would tend to pick the worst examples, which are not as bad as some of those in the private sector, and raise their standards. Universities would be forced to consider the standard of the accommodation that they provide. In most cases their provision more than fits the bill, but the amendment might make a few universities bring their worst properties up to standard.

John Hayes: Rather as John Bright said of Lord John Russell, one of the hon. Gentleman's predecessors, I have to tell him that he is probably ''flogging a dead horse'' with his amendment. However, I wonder whether he might test the Minister on his experience and knowledge of the arrangements that university authorities make to ensure that properties are up to standard. The Minister has on a number of occasions used that argument as a reason not to do what the hon. Gentleman proposes. He says that there are good informal arrangements in place, but he has never given us any detail.

Matthew Green: That is an excellent question for the Minister to answer. He has told us informally that the standards are high and there are plenty of arrangements in place, but I am not sure that that is so. He is relying on the fact that universities are ''responsible semi-public bodies''. There is no enforcement or regulation covering such buildings, and if a university were to allow its properties to deteriorate substantially, I am not sure what anyone could do about it. Perhaps the Minister can tread a bit into the territory of the Department for Education and Skills—its mind is probably on other things today—and see what is currently in force to regulate or enforce action against a university that allows the quality of its halls of residence to slip.
 Amendment No. 244, which would leave out paragraph 7, is a probing amendment. The paragraph exempts a building that is occupied by 
''one or more persons who have a leasehold estate in it granted for a term of more than 21 years''—
 in other words, a long lease holder. That takes us back to a situation that was raised last Thursday. It is particularly common in student housing for the property to be owned by one student and for several other students to live in it. I can envisage a person who is a leaseholder for a term of over 21 years occupying a house but there being five, six or seven other people renting from him in that building; they are individual households in a three or four-storey property. That situation is probably more likely to occur in London more than anywhere else. 
 I do not want to dwell on this matter for too long, but I am concerned that there is a loophole for 
 somebody who is a leaseholder and living in the building. I do not think that they would be exempted if there were not a lease but they owned the building and lived in it, so why are they exempted if they are a leaseholder? On Thursday, the Minister for Housing and Planning made it clear that properties would be included if the owner was living in the building as well as other people, but I am talking about a leaseholder—a category that is currently specifically excluded. 
 Amendment No. 237 is also a probing amendment. It deals with clause 192(3)(c). I am slightly bemused by the provision that 
''where a building is not structurally detached, it is not a house if a material of it lies above or below the remainder of the structure''.
 I am confused because if a right-wing Government were ever to get into power—

Robert Syms: They have.

Matthew Green: Well, suppose an even more right-wing Government than the current ones privatised Downing street and decided to sell off Nos. 10 and 11. It is my understanding that part of No. 10 goes out and above No. 11—a part of it now runs across the top of the other building. Would the buildings be exempt if they were used as HMOs? They would be, according to my reading of the Bill.
 Those properties are not HMOs—at least not yet—but there could be other such cases elsewhere in the country. I am a bit bemused: if there are two buildings that are not entirely vertical because a part of one of them goes above and across the other one, are both exempt? I could be wrong, but I think that they would be. If not, will the Minister for Housing and Planning explain why this provision is in the Bill? 
 New clause 18B went with an amendment that was not selected because it was, in effect, a clause stand part debate about deleting clauses 192 to 195. I have a question about the new clause. The Minister likes his regulations—he likes giving himself powers to make secondary legislation. This Bill is stuffed full of statements such as, ''And we will make regulations elsewhere,'' but when it comes to defining an HMO—which we can imagine the Minister being tempted to do almost entirely through regulations—the Government have used five clauses and gone into quite a lot of detail. I am not unhappy about that, but I want the Minister to explain why he has decided to include all of that in the Bill, when he has chosen not to include lots of other things. What is so special about the definition of HMOs? What makes it so different from lots of other definitions that are to be dealt with through regulations? 
 The new clause would allow the Minister to make all those definitions through regulations. I am not suggesting that I want him to go down that route, but I would like him to explain why he has gone down it.

Robert Syms: I rise to pick up on some of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), particularly those relating to student accommodation. There are 260,000 students living in university halls of residence and 800,000 living in private rented accommodation, so we are talking about a pretty big segment of the population.
 The NUS brief—which I am glad to see that the Minister has a copy of and which I have no doubt he has read in great detail—shows that there is concern, particularly about exemptions for university accommodation. Many students are in such accommodation for only 12 months, and if health and safety measures are not necessarily up to the job, it sometimes takes that long to get a report of a problem, by which time the students have moved on. The NUS is concerned that universities spend a lot of money trying to prevent local authorities from enforcing safety standards and that students are threatened with action by various university authorities if they report inadequacies to environmental health officers. The NUS alleges that: 
''In Manchester this year, 300 students lived in a condemned building for three months due to accommodation shortages.''
 There are real issues relating to student accommodation, and this is the day when students will be in the news. There has been a major expansion in the number of university students under both the previous and the current Government, and that puts strain on housing resources in certain towns and certain areas. It would be good if the Minister were to put on record the Government's reasons for excluding this important group, and I look forward to his response.

Keith Hill: Let me begin by reassuring the hon. Member for Ludlow that there is no hidden agenda. There is no intention to introduce larger swathes of exemption beyond those identified in the Bill.
 The hon. Gentleman asked about asylum seekers in private rented accommodation and whether the type of accommodation organised by NASS is likely to be exempted. The exemptions would apply only if such people were housed in accommodation owned by a registered social landlord or a local authority. 
 I remind the hon. Gentleman and the Committee that under part 1 the local authority has a responsibility for all the stock in its area; it has responsibility for pursuing all reports and anxieties about hazards. Indeed, part of the purpose of mandatory licensing is to enhance local authorities' scrutiny and intervention in respect of the stock that is most likely to be of risk. I shall return to the issue of student accommodation, but before I do so I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that that duty of intervention on the basis of the health and safety ratings system applies to all stock and that it allows enforcement action to be taken against university properties should they have defects. 
 I shall respond to the questions raised by the hon. Member for Ludlow and the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) about student accommodation, and the one asked by the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) about university arrangements for monitoring student accommodation. 
 For the benefit of the Committee I shall give a brief description of the purposes of schedule 9. It describes buildings which are not HMOs for the purpose of part 1, and includes those regulated by other legislation and 
 prescribed as exempt by the appropriate national authority. That includes buildings occupied by students mainly for the purpose of pursuing full-time higher education, and owned or managed by the education establishment or a person specified by regulations. It also includes buildings occupied by long lease holders, members of their family and such numbers of persons as is specified in regulations. 
 I do not accept that it would serve any useful purpose to subject buildings that are already covered by existing legislation to any additional control. Children's homes, hospitals and care homes are all examples of such buildings. They are already controlled by the Care Standards Act 2000, and no purpose would be served by treating those properties as HMOs subject to the provisions of parts 2 to 4. Regulations will be made to prescribe properties only where there is already adequate control over the applicable management standards. 
 Amendment No. 243 would also exclude from the list of accepted buildings halls of residence owned and run by universities. We have carefully considered the case for extending the definition of HMOs to halls of residence. We recognise that there are various reasons why some people may want the Bill to extend to halls of residence, such as the desire for certainty that students would receive the same level of protection provided to occupants of HMOs by the licence proposals. The licensing provisions do not cover halls of residence because we believe that universities and other higher education establishments who own and manage such properties are responsible public bodies, and can be expected to take very seriously their responsibilities concerning the safety and welfare of students.

Matthew Green: Will the Minister give way?

Keith Hill: I shall in due course, but I hope the hon. Gentleman will permit me to develop the argument and flesh out the case a bit more. I know that he has already expressed dissatisfaction with the fact that the public nature of these bodies constitutes a justification for our decision not to include university-run accommodation in the proposals.
 We have always emphasised that the main purpose of the HMO licensing proposals is to be able to identify where HMOs are and identify the landlords of such properties for the purposes of part 1. For halls of residence owned and managed by education establishments that will not be the case, as the owners or managers of such accommodation are already known to the local authorities. We are also aware, and I hope that this will assist the hon. Member for Poole, that universities and other higher education establishments have dedicated safety officers who carry out regular condition surveys and clearly defined programmes for the maintenance of the halls of residence including gas, electricity and other installations on the premises. However, as I have said before, halls of residence are in any case not exempted from the health and safety provisions in part 1. 
 I share the objective of the hon. Member for Ludlow that there should be adequate protection for students living in poor conditions, and that there 
 should be adequate protection for people living in the neighbourhood of antisocial students—should there be such creatures. Extending the licensing requirement to universities is not an effective way of achieving either of those objectives. The Bill contains safeguards to take account of such concerns. For instance, where there is a particular problem for students living in HMOs that are badly managed or have inadequate facilities, a local authority can extend the licensing of HMOs to cover those properties. On the other hand, if the problem is mainly that students are behaving in an antisocial way—heaven forfend—and adversely affecting the neighbourhood, local authorities can use selective licensing to target a particular area. 
 The hon. Member for Poole made excellent use of the documents circulated by the National Union of Students entitled ''Safe As Houses'', which I have perused with interest. I drew it from the world wide web and found that I was invited to write to the Minister, Keith Hill MP, to express such concerns and to urge him to amend the Bill. That led me to consider the document with care. Although I do not dispute for one moment the fact that the NUS has been able to identify some appalling examples of badly run student HMOs, there is not a single piece of evidence in the document that would justify the inclusion in the measures of student halls of residence. There is an example, to which the hon. Member for Ludlow referred, in which students in Manchester were housed in very inadequate accommodation for three months, but that was explicitly temporary accommodation, which would not by any normal standard of judgment or definition fall under the category of a hall of residence.

Matthew Green: I agree with the Minister that there is that one well-known case. However, there must have been more, because in their 1999 consultation, the Government said that
''there is some evidence of unacceptable standards in these sectors.''
 That referred to universities and higher education establishments. The Government must have more evidence or they would not have written that.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman should remember that that was a document in which we set out a reasonably wide scope for consultation purposes. As I have said, I do not dispute the fact that there may be cases in which, unfortunately, halls of residence do not exhibit the best standards and may contain hazards. However, I remind the hon. Gentleman that such places fall within the purview of part 1, and it is a local authority's responsibility to take action where there are hazards in housing in its locality. The basis of intervention, should it be justified, is already in the Bill. However, I emphasise that there is no general evidence—and the hon. Gentleman is not in a position to demonstrate any—of a problem with university-run and owned properties.

John Hayes: For the purposes of clarity and to reassure Committee members, the wider public and representative organisations such as the NUS, it might be useful to make the evidence to which the hon.
 Member for Ludlow referred available to the Committee. The Government say that there is evidence, but we are fishing around in the dark to find out what that is and relying on third-party organisations to come up with what may be a partial report of the Government's position. It would be helpful if the Minister gave Committee members the opportunity to see the evidence.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point. I undertake to establish whether such evidence is available, and if it can be located I will ensure that it is made available. I give no guarantees; many Government inquiries and much of our research and consultation are based on discussions between officials, local authorities and other interested parties, so assertions may be made verbally which are not found in written form. A great deal of the evidence adduced by the NUS in its briefing is of a reported nature, and not documented. However, we will do what we can and, if we find evidence, I will make it available to the Committee. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the point.

David Kidney: What shocked me about the NUS briefing was the alleged behaviour of a small minority of those in university management in their dealings with students; for example, the threat of disciplinary action against students who contact environmental health officers to report facilities, and the withholding of degrees, the prevention of progression to the next academic year or blocking of access to library facilities in cases of accommodation debt. Such behaviour is unacceptable, but the briefing states that some of those restrictions are written into university regulations. Universities receive a lot of money from the public purse, so would not a good way to approach this matter be to use the fact that we pay many of their bills in order to uphold standards of decency in their management?

Keith Hill: My hon. Friend, as ever, makes a reasonable point. I concur with him in condemning any intimidation, especially if it is designed to prevent the reporting of legitimate complaints about accommodation. However, for the record—and to achieve some balance—I also say that it was my reading of this evidence that in some circumstances universities impose penalties in response to the wilful withholding of rents and other payments by students. There is room for debate about the justifiability of that. However, we would not expect universities to engage in intimidatory behaviour, and I would expect the NUS to make representations about that to Education Ministers.
 I remind the Committee of something that has already been stated: the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education might have more pressing matters than this one on his mind at present. I have agreed to meet him for discussions about the general issue of student accommodation, the pressures that arise from concentrations of student populations, and the way in which universities and local authorities might be encouraged to work together more closely—following the example that my Department and the Department for Education and Skills intend to set in this matter.

Alan Whitehead: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the nature of the reporting and complaints procedures in many universities? The NUS briefing raises concerns that arise from the relationship between accommodation and the withholding of degrees or issuing of threats not to progress students through their courses; those concerns relate to universities' complaints procedures. Has my right hon. Friend carefully examined the small print of the Higher Education Bill, which will be debated in the House this afternoon? There may be a change in reporting procedures for universities: there is a possibility that students will have much greater redress when universities attempt to take such sanctions against them. Can he recommend Committee members who could look at the small print of that legislation as this Bill progresses?

Keith Hill: I am enormously grateful to my hon. and professorial Friend, who is a great authority on university matters. I must confess that I have found the small print of my own Bill sufficient to occupy me, so I have not had the opportunity to read the small print of the Higher Education Bill. However I am certain that what my hon. Friend said is right, and I agree that it would be to the great benefit of Committee members—or some of them at least—if they were to examine the small print of that excellent measure. Mr. Conway, I must not digress further into those areas.
 The subject of amendment No. 244 is owner-occupied properties—properties occupied by the owner and his family. I do not believe that it can be justified to impose on them the sorts of controls that parts 2 to 4 place on privately rented accommodation. I am a little baffled by the direction from which the Liberal Democrats are coming at the moment. Last week, the party was in powerful regulatory mode. The mood today, however, seems non-regulatory except for the demand to extend the licensing provisions to such property. That suggests a lurch back to regulation, but for heaven's sake who am I to expect consistency from the Liberal Democrats? 
 The position is not materially changed if the family have one or two non-family members living in the home. The HMO licensing provision is aimed at identifying high-risk rented property and ensuring that there is an adequate standard of management. Paragraph 7 to schedule 9 is important to ensure that the provisions do not also apply to owner-occupied accommodation just because non-family members live with the family. Regulations will be made to ensure that only genuine HMOs are caught by the provisions.

Matthew Green: There seems to be a difference between someone with a long lease and someone who owns a building. We must bear it in mind that, in certain university areas, students own the properties; parents may have bought property in their son or daughter's name, and other students rent it. There may be six or seven people in the different properties, which could easily have three storeys made up of separate households. Such properties would be included in the licensing, because they are owner-occupied. However,
 leaseholders would not be included, because they are specifically exempted. I know that the Minister has had his bit of fun, but I tabled the amendment to find out the difference between an owned property, which will be included, and a leased property, which will be excluded. I am baffled.

Keith Hill: I did have a bit of fun; we all enjoyed it. On a serious note, however, I have to say that the hon. Gentleman has made a reasonable point, and I am content to take it up. We are discussing a difficult and complex area, and the Government are still feeling their way through the detail of these matters. I undertake to think further about the question of excluding freehold owner-occupiers, and I hope to come back to the hon. Gentleman with a clearer response, either in Committee or at a later stage.
 Clause 192 sets out what buildings are relevant for the purpose of the meaning of a house in multiple occupation under clause 191. Subsection (2) defines the circumstances in which a building or part of a building may or may not be regarded as a house. Paragraph (c) provides that when a material part of a building overhangs or is beneath the structure of another building, it is to be regarded not as a house, but as a flat. 
 Amendment No. 237 would remove the effect of the provision and create uncertainty. The hon. Gentleman may have feared that the provision excluded that part of a structure from being regarded as an HMO. That is not the case, because if the building to which the part is attached is an HMO, the attached part also forms part of HMO. If the property were a flat and in multiple occupation, it, too, would come within the definition. Paragraph (c) is a technical provision, and it must be retained to ensure that an HMO can be determined as such for the purpose of clause 191. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment. 
 New clause 18B would provide that the definition of an HMO be removed from the Bill. It would require clauses 191 to 195 not to stand part of the Bill and HMOs to be defined entirely through secondary legislation. We recognise that there has been criticism of the current definition as difficult to understand. Allied to that is the desire to ensure that the problems resulting from the 1985 definition do not arise again. There is a fear that, as a result of defining an HMO in the Bill, a problem might arise that could not be amended because the definition is in primary legislation. However, there are significant regulation-making powers in the Bill, which we expect to allow sufficient flexibility to amend the definition, should anomalies arise. 
 The definition of an HMO is fundamental to the operation of the HMO regulatory regime. To have such a key piece of regulation defined through secondary legislation would inevitably draw substantial criticism. It is a case of ''damned if you do and damned if you don't'', but it is important to put the definition in the Bill.

John Hayes: The Committee, the House and the nation are entitled to consistency. I hope that the Minister will address the specific point made by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who in an unsophisticated
 way has been rather engaging in describing the apparent paradox in a Bill that is flexible in allowing a great deal of its implementation to be defined by secondary legislation, but is in this part inflexible because, as the Minister implicitly acknowledged, it defines things very tightly. A slightly fuller explanation of the reason for that paradox is necessary to satisfy the Committee, the House and those who will be affected by the Bill.

Keith Hill: I am not sure that I can provide an extended justification for including in the Bill a definition of what is and is not an HMO. I will only say that the Bill is substantially concerned with HMOs and with regulatory regimes for such houses, and in such circumstances it would be strange indeed not to include such a definition in the Bill. That conviction is further reinforced by the fact that problems of definition have arisen with earlier legislation. We want to eliminate such confusion by giving a clearer definition in this Bill.

John Hayes: I am sympathetic to the Minister; he makes a strong case about the need for clarity. However, will some kind of safety valve be considered at a later stage? The Minister says that there have been problems, which he has been right to identify, with the interpretation of earlier legislation. That means that the Government need to look closely at such matters, because problems that we cannot predict may yet arise from this definition. It is important for the purposes of clarity that the specifics of HMOs are defined, but there is little room for manoeuvre. The Minister says that there are other parts of the Bill under which the Government can govern by regulation, but I wonder whether a slight loosening of the definition is necessary to allow a degree of discretion in the event of disputes.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, which I know is meant to be genuinely constructive. I am not sure that I will be able to satisfy him entirely. However, later parts of the Bill will provide the opportunity for further discussion of HMOs and definitions, and those debates might be the occasion for further exploration of such issues.
 The hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to the need to legislate for cases that may arise. I often say—although I have not had the opportunity to do so in connection with this Bill—that most legislation is about what may happen, rather than what will happen. It is ''what-iffery'', in which law-makers, such as we, try to envisage situations that may arise and suggest how they may be dealt with. It is legitimate to say that we should concern ourselves with cases that may arise, but we will revert to that in later discussions. 
 I am conscious that I have spoken at length, but I hope that the Committee will accept the reason for our an approach to this matter. I ask the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green: The Minister's answer on amendment No. 242 was satisfactory, particularly because he gave the categorical assurance that
 properties used for housing asylum seekers will not be exempted unless they are in the hands of a local authority or a registered social landlord. I hope that he sticks to that assurance when the Home Office beats a path to his door, as I suspect it will at some stage, saying, ''We really must be able to house them in dreadful conditions, because we have got too many of them to deal with and we cannot process them fast enough.'' I am sure that the Minister's words would be used if, for example, any regulations came forward suggesting that they should be exempted. I am glad that he will hold firm on that; it is a considerable reassurance.
 As the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, one of the difficulties with student accommodation is that there is, perhaps, insufficient detailed evidence. Although it is said many times that things have happened, we do not know where or when, or any other details. The most disturbing aspect is the potential for universities to bully students. We might want to return to that matter on Report, so it may be best if it is left for the moment. 
 I am glad that after the Minister had his initial moment of fun, he realised why I had tabled amendment No. 244. There is ambiguity concerning leasehold and freehold properties. Hopefully, some clarification will be winging its way to us on Report; I foresee a Government amendment moving in one direction or another. The Minister has, however, satisfied me on amendment No. 237, and I agree with what he said. 
 I am still somewhat baffled about why this measure needs to be defined so strongly when the Minister seeks so much regulation for others. Because this provision is included, he has left himself open to being asked—every time we come to wording that says ''the Minister will, by regulation, introduce a measure''—why something is not included in the Bill,. I suppose that consistency is difficult to achieve in government, so it would, perhaps, be unkind to push that matter further.

Sally Keeble: Amendment No. 244 would leave out paragraph 7, but if somebody were living with their family in a property under a long lease and they had the protection regarding overcrowding, sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) would apply. Why is that different from somebody living in a freehold property who is bound by the same thing? This would be exactly the same.

Matthew Green: They are not treated the same. Paragraph 7 specifically exempts from the Bill properties where there is a long lease holder. There is no equivalent for freehold properties.

Sally Keeble: My understanding is that people living on their own or with their family in a freehold property will not come under the HMO restriction. If someone living with their family has a long lease, where they have the right to buy, they will not be treated as living in an HMO, which would seem to me to be complete parity.

Matthew Green: The hon. Lady is somewhat confused. I gave an example of student accommodation in London—a building of three storeys or more with five or more people living in it, one of whom is the leaseholder. That would be excluded; but if one person were the freeholder and the other people were tenants, it would not be excluded from the Bill.

Sally Keeble: I would like to return to sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c). If the person is living in a leasehold property with their family, the building is exempt: but if they have sub-tenants, the situation is wholly different. The treatment is exactly the same.

Matthew Green: I am not sure the hon. Lady is right. Schedule 9 is about ''Buildings which are not HMOs''. There is no equivalent of paragraph 7 for freeholders—it is only for leaseholders. The point of the amendment was to ask the Minister to explain why freeholders and leaseholders are treated differently. Freehold properties are not stated to be buildings that are not HMOs where there are a number of tenants. The provision specifically exempts the situation where there is a leaseholder—one person, or one family—and a number of tenants in the same building. That building is exempt from being an HMO because there is a leaseholder occupying the property. The same building if the family occupying it owned the freehold will apparently not be exempt from being an HMO.
 I am asking for clarity. The Minister admitted that there might be some ambiguity in the provision, which is precisely why I tabled the amendment. The right hon. Gentleman has agreed to have a look at the issue and come back with, if not a potential amendment, then some form of clarification. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 9 agreed to.

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 238, in
clause 192, page 135, line 13, leave out 'women's'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 239, in 
clause 192, page 135, line 16, leave out 'women's'.
 Amendment No. 241, in 
clause 195, page 137, line 11, leave out 'women's'.

Matthew Green: I will be brief. Are the Government being sexist? Why does the provision refer to a ''women's refuge'' rather than just a ''refuge''? Forty per cent. of violence in the home is committed against men, and it is not unknown for the man to leave the household, taking the children with him. Other parts of the Bill talk about ''persons'' rather than ''women'', so why are refuges called ''women's refuges?

Yvette Cooper: I have a considerable amount of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point. Clause 192 sets out what
 buildings are relevant for the purposes of the meaning of HMO in clause 191. In particular clause 192 provides that a women's refuge falls within the definition. Clause 195 provides for the circumstances in which persons occupy a building as their main or only residence, which includes occupation of a women's refuge.
 In clause 192(5) which defines this type of hostel, it is very clear that the definition of person using the facility is not gender specific, so no court would determine that a hostel housing men escaping from violence should be treated differently from one housing women. I am also advised that section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 gives a presumption that in any Act of Parliament reference to the feminine gender includes the masculine gender unless the contrary intention appears. No contrary intention appears in the Bill; indeed, the opposite appears in clause 192(5), to which I have already referred. 
 The practical impact of the clause will not be to discriminate in any way between men and women. The term ''women's refuge'' is in the Bill because it is a generic term that is well understood to mean a secure place to which people suffering the threat of physical violence or mental abuse resort to escape that. I am happy to look further for a gender-neutral description of such a hostel, but I give the assurance that regardless of the term used in subsection (4)(b), the impact of the clause will be gender neutral and that that is the intention behind the provision. On that basis I urge the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw the amendment.

Matthew Green: As the Minister will examine the issue and as it is clear that the group of amendments is not substantive, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 192 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 193 - HMOs: certain converted blocks of flats

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 240, in
clause 193, page 135, line 42, leave out paragraph (b) and insert— 
 '(b) at least three of the self-contained flats are not owner occupied.'.

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 284, in 
clause 193, page 135, line 42, leave out 'two-thirds' and insert 'one-third'.

Matthew Green: Amendment No. 240 is a probing amendment. My understanding of the current position is that the provision applies if less than one third of the self-contained flats in a property are owner-occupied. I believe that the Conservative amendment, No. 284 is trying to amend the Bill so that the current position stands—I believe that the British Property Federation is interested in that. Amendment No. 240 is designed to elicit clarification.
 In London and other cities, there might be large blocks of flats that contain a considerable number of properties that are tenanted, but they constitute less than third of the properties in the block. The term ''at least three'' was put in my probing amendment to ascertain what the Minister is trying to achieve with the two-thirds provision. In a block of flats with 100 properties, 30 would constitute less than two thirds of the properties, but that is still a lot of tenanted accommodation. Clearly the circumstances are different if there are five properties and two are tenanted. 
 I am not saying that my amendment offers the right way forward. I suspect that the Conservative amendment leans too far in the other direction, but I am concerned that the Minister has potentially excluded some large blocks of flats where somebody owns quite a lot of them and is renting them out. Therefore, mine is a probing amendment to find out how the Minister might deal with such a situation.

John Hayes: I intend to deal more fully with amendment standing in my name and those of my hon. Friends, which in part reflects concerns raised by the British Property Federation. It is founded on concern about the change in the Government's thinking on the one-third or two-thirds threshold, which is set out in clause 193. The amendment probes the threshold of owner-occupation of self-contained flats in a converted block of flats. The model schemes being run by a number of local authorities are based on the Government's preferred model—at least, the local authorities believe that. Those models exempt properties if at least one third of the self-contained flats are owner-occupied on long leases. However, in the Bill it is proposed, without any explanation, that that proportion be changed to two thirds. We are probing the point so that the Minister will offer the Committee an explanation.
 These are difficult matters, because it is possible that as people move in and out of properties the proportion that is owner-occupied will change. Accordingly, sometimes a property will fall into the category of being necessarily licensed, whereas at another time—perhaps days or weeks later—owing to the movement of tenants, it may not need to be licensed. There is real concern about the threshold and the marginal effects of such changes on the status of the property. 
 There are further problems with people knowing whether they should be licensed. There are real issues about people understanding the circumstances at any given point, given that such properties can change hands reasonably quickly. There may be uncertainty for both tenants and landlords about whether they fall into the licensable category. 
 Those are legitimate concerns. The Government need to justify their chosen threshold. I do not hold a candle for any interest group—I listen to all of them, as I am sure the Minister does. The British Property Federation has an important point on which we need further explanation, hence our amendment.

Keith Hill: Clause 193 sets out which converted blocks of flats fall within the definition of a house in multiple occupation. Those are blocks where the standard conversion does not at least meet the standards laid down in the Building Regulations 1991, and in which less than two thirds of the flats are owner-occupied. The current definition of HMO in the Housing Act 1985 applies to all converted houses, regardless of the standard of the conversion or the tenure of occupancy. However, that is not appropriate, because the legislation is primarily intended to target poor-quality accommodation providing homes for some of the most vulnerable members of the community.
 We have taken this opportunity to narrow the definition of HMO to include poor-quality properties that are occupied by a substantial number of shortholders and/or tenants. I have carefully considered the arguments for the inclusion of all converted blocks in the definition, regardless of the tenure of occupants, and for the exclusion of all converted blocks of self-contained flats, but I am not persuaded by either of those. For the reasons I have already mentioned, I do not consider it appropriate that HMO legislation should apply to all conversions, regardless of tenure. The Government believe that owner-occupiers are in a position to exercise their contractual rights and require minimum standards to be enforced. Indeed, if they are not happy with the management arrangements, they can apply to a leasehold valuation tribunal to appoint a manager for the block. Tenants, however, are not in the same position. 
 We should remember that we have declared it to be the job of the local authority to be the champion of the vulnerable tenant. Moreover, many problems that are associated with HMOs, such as poor maintenance and management, arise as a direct result of the absence of the landlord leaseholder. Many of the blocks that the legislation is aimed at are owned by individuals or companies, were converted many years ago, and are occupied by elderly or otherwise vulnerable people. 
 The health and safety of the occupiers of such blocks are frequently a cause of concern. Such houses are often not fitted with adequate smoke detection equipment: the Building Regulations 1991 require alarms to be mains-fitted, and thus always working. I have referred to the Entec report on fire safety, which was published in 1997. Committee members will recall that it concluded that persons living in houses converted into self-contained flats are twice as likely to die from fire than those living in comparable single-occupancy houses. The larger the house, the greater the risk of death from fire: 52 per cent. of deaths occur in HMOs of three or more storeys, but only 16.5 per cent. of HMO-dwellers live in such properties. That is a compelling reason to ensure that there is HMO legislation to protect people living in poor conversions. 
 However, I do not support the proposal in amendment No. 240, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow, that legislation should only apply where there are three or more tenancies. I am aware that it is a probing amendment—as is the other 
 amendment in the group—but it would produce some singularly strange results. For example, a house converted into four flats would only be an HMO if three quarters of them were let, but a large house converted into 15 flats would fall within the definition if only one fifth were let. I know that that was not the point of the hon. Gentleman's amendment. 
 There are 640,000 HMOs and they house about 1.2 million households. Of those HMOs, 120,000 have three storeys or more. As I have said, the risk of death from fire is much higher in buildings of three storeys or more. The Entec report revealed that a dweller in a self-contained flat in a poorly converted three-storey block was five and a half times more likely to die from fire than a similar dweller in a smaller block. That is why the fire safety order applies to such properties, and local authorities must have powers to license them if they are problematic. 
 There are two reasons for the change in the formulation. First, many of the blocks to which the legislation will apply will be poorly converted and in single ownership, and it is considered that the one-third rule may be subject to abuse—for example, sham leases might be created to avoid the requirement for the house to be licensed or subject to other HMO controls. Secondly, although the Entec fire report was largely concerned with the number of storeys in a house, it also considered that the number of occupants in a house was a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of fire. 
Mr. Hayes rose—

Keith Hill: If I might continue my thought, although the new formulation does not directly deal with the number of occupants, it does deal with the number of units in the property: the more flats there are, the more occupants of the house there will be. The old formulation excluded many tenants from the protection of the fire safety order, as the example that I gave shows. The new formulation will ensure that blocks where a significant number—not necessarily the majority—of flats are rented out can be targeted and dealt with by the local authority.

John Hayes: Fire will preoccupy the Committee time and again. That is appropriate, particularly as the Government have recently become expert in firefighting. It is important to understand the difference between incidence of fire and death from fire. It is important that the figures for each of those categories are looked at, because both Government information and third-party information draw a clear distinction between the prevalence of fire in certain types of property and the results of that fire.
 That returns us to the issues at the heart of part 1 about hazard and risk. Now is not the time to debate the subject, but it important that we go through it in some detail later in our proceedings. I have a simple question for the Minister. How will the occupancy of a block with a complex set of arrangements—some privately occupied accommodation, some rented and some rapidly changing—be monitored? What models have the Government put in place to allow that to happen effectively? I am worried that people who should be licensed will not know necessarily that they 
 should be licensed. As I said earlier, the status of the block may change regularly, and that could cause all sorts of problems. The Government must have calculated how such provisions will work practice.

Keith Hill: The hon. Gentleman, as usual, has raised a perfectly reasonable point about notification and information. As he will be aware, we shall come soon to clauses that deal with notification procedures, so I suggest, in all humility, that that might be the more appropriate time at which to deal with those arrangements. I wish merely to reassure him and the Committee that the Government are aware of the importance of notification and that we have specific statutory provisions in relation to it. We are also aware that local authorities will need to engage in notification procedures. We are aware of the burdens of the economic impact assessment and we will be working through the professional organisations to ensure that landlords are aware of the new licensing regimes. The proposals have been in the firmament for a long time and we are reasonably confident that there is a high level of awareness of the Government's intentions.

Matthew Green: The Minister has not yet answered my query about the situation in which there is a large block of, let us say, 100 flats, 30 of which are tenanted—owned by one person and rented out—while the others are owner-occupied or in another form of tenure. In such circumstances, that property would be excluded from the Bill. Clearly, the property houses a substantial number of tenants in a potentially large and tall building and that could constitute a great fire risk not only for the tenants, but for the leaseholders in other parts of the building. Does the provision preclude a local authority from using its additional power elsewhere in the Bill to deal with that risk? If so, many of my worries will dissipate. Otherwise, I will be worried that the Government have left a loophole that could cause many tenants to be unprotected.

Keith Hill: I am tempted to ask the hon. Gentleman to give me a chance to come on to such issues. The Committee will be overjoyed to discover that I have not yet quite concluded my remarks, but I assure him that the Bill does not preclude such a form of additional licensing, should a case be available to justify it. I hope that I have been of assistance to him.
 I have dealt with some of the anomalies that might arise from amendment No. 240. My most serious point is that the Government's aim is to achieve the protection of tenants living in HMOs where a substantial proportion of the flats are let on short tenancies. The amendment would not necessarily achieve that in all cases. 
 Amendment No. 284, in the name of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings and others, is a probing amendment, so I shall not feign shock and horror at the fact that it amounts to taking away the protection that his party granted to people under the HMO model registration schemes under the Housing Act 1996, in which certain blocks of flats can be excluded from the scheme if at least one third of the flats in the block are owner-occupied. Legislation on fire safety and HMO model registration schemes 
 introduced by the 1996 Administration excluded blocks in which at least one third of flats were owner-occupied. We would exclude blocks that are more than one third let for the reasons that I have already given and on which I shall now expand. 
 Our proposals would ensure that blocks not meeting acceptable conversion standards and in which more than a third of occupiers are tenants would come within the definition of an HMO, and that the local authority could apply the necessary measures to ensure that such blocks were properly managed and maintained for the benefit of all the residents, including owner-occupiers. 
 The amendment would require a higher protection threshold, by taking poorly converted blocks outside the definition of an HMO, unless two thirds of their flats were let. That would reduce the scope for protection to a level lower than that of the HMO registration schemes introduced under the 1996 Act, which his own party put in place. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings would not want to take a step retrograde to the measures introduced by a Conservative Government, and that, on balance, he will support of the present Government's proposal to introduce enhanced protection for tenants.

John Hayes: As the Minister said, my amendment was a probing amendment, but it is important to clarify at which point registration kicks in. The Minister is right to say that the Committee's objective is to ensure that the most vulnerable tenants are properly protected. That has to be the abiding justification for licensing. However, I am worried about short-term tenants, who may move quickly in and out of properties. It is important that we debate the issue further under the notification aspects of the Bill, as the Minister implied we would. We must ensure that no landlord is licensed when they should not be, or—perhaps more importantly—not licensed when they should be. That is the concern of those who have said that they are worried about the marginal impact of the regulations.
 However, I entirely endorse what the Minister has said. Our driving conviction is to ensure that the most vulnerable citizens are properly protected. Motivated by that conviction, and ever mindful of its significance, I am happy not to press my amendment. However, as you will no doubt remind me Mr. Conway, it is up to the hon. Member for Ludlow to make a decision on his own pale imitation.

Matthew Green: Never does a day pass in which the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings does not have a dig at the Liberal Democrats. He must be worried about us.
 The Minister has reassured me that a local authority could seek additional licensing for blocks of flats in which less than a third of the occupants are tenants. That is a reassurance for tenants in such a situation, which will occur primarily in large cities. I hope that the Minister will make it clear to local authorities whose areas are likely to contain such 
 properties that they can go down that route. Local authorities might not otherwise realise that there are other means of dealing with the buildings with 30 or 40 tenants that are excluded from the Bill. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings raises an interesting point about properties moving above or below the threshold. There is probably no correct answer to that problem: a threshold of some sort is inevitable. However, the Government should consider the possibility of the owner of a large block of flats attempting to get out of licensing by engaging in lots of long leases, perhaps to other members of the family. 
 I am somewhat reassured by the Minister's comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 193 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 194 and 195 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45 - Designation of areas subject to additional licensing

John Hayes: I beg to move amendment No. 252, in
clause 45, page 29, line 31, leave out paragraph (b).

Derek Conway: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 Amendment No. 253, in 
clause 45, page 29, line 39, leave out 'persons' and insert 'both tenants and landlords'.
 Amendment No. 255, in 
clause 45, page 29, line 42, at end insert— 
 '(c) take reasonable steps to enter into working partnerships with such private sector landlords, agents and associations as may, in the opinion of the authority, be appropriate.'.

John Hayes: It is extremely difficult for people like me, who have difficulty in coping with such complex matters, to move from one part of the Bill to another and turn pages backwards while doing so. However, I have struggled my way through it, and I am just about there. You, Mr. Conway, who are more skilled in such matters than I am, will realise that we are now back at page 29 and debating the subject of additional licensing.
 This is an important matter. The clause creates discretion for local authorities to apply additional licensing when they deem it appropriate, as defined in clause 45. The clause makes specific reference to issues that may arise when an HMO that is being managed ''sufficiently ineffectively'' as to cause a range of problems for those who occupy the HMO or for members of the public. 
 The Committee will see that amendment No. 252 is a probing amendment. It obliges the Minister to explain how the Bill interacts and overlaps with, or even replaces, existing regulation. Powerful regulation is already available under the Housing Act 1985: as the Minister knows, that authorises local authorities to take action on badly run HMOs. 
 We do not seek to restrict local authorities from taking necessary action. However, by its nature, additional licensing is contentious. Landlords will be mindful of the fact that we are giving local authorities a significant power, and although the Bill describes the circumstances in which they might exercise that power in broad terms, it is important that the Government be more specific when the Bill is implemented. As has been said several times this morning, regulation will no doubt provide greater clarity. 
 Additional licensing will worry those who think that they might be unreasonably treated by an over-zealous local authority. Local authorities already have powers of entry to any property that they merely believe may be an HMO; and their discretion will allow them to define what, in practical terms, is ''ineffective management''. In such circumstances, existing legislation allows local authorities to issue a notice requiring work to be put in hand within 21 days; and, as we heard in a previous debate, local authorities already have the power to introduce local HMO registration schemes. Has the case for the necessity for additional licensing been made sufficiently persuasively? I am not entirely against it. On balance, my argument is not that the policy is indefensible, but that we need a persuasive case. When regulation extends as it does in this Bill—when powers are granted in addition to powers that already exist—a very persuasive case has to be made. As yet, the Minister has failed to convince me. 
 I do not imply any criticism of the Minister. He is an able man, but he is a busy man with other fish to fry. Perhaps he has not had enough time to devote to the subject, but unless he spends that time and uses all his powers of eloquence, all of his wit and wisdom, not only I will be unconvinced of the need to extend power in this respect, but the doubts of many landlords and organisations outside this place will be confirmed. I will waste no more time, because the Minister will want to be persuasive, as I suggested.

Matthew Green: That is a hell of a fence the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings is sitting on in respect of additional licensing.
 Getting back to the Minister's confusion about where the Liberal Democrats are coming from, amendment No. 255 is almost deregulatory and seeks a voluntary approach before the licensing route is used. Before making such a designation, the authority should work strategically with private landlords, agents and associations. The Minister can see that that would be preferable if it can be achieved, albeit with the threat of additional licensing. I am sure that the whole Committee would agree that it would be a good thing if we could improve standards without having recourse to additional licensing. This is just a probing amendment, and I am sure it is not perfectly framed. It is designed simply to ask the Minister why seeking a voluntary approach is not one of the things that the authority has to do before making the designation. 
 I cannot support the Conservative amendment, No. 252, because removing the phrase 
''an area in their district''
 would lead to over-regulation. If an authority wanted additional licensing, it would have to apply it throughout its district, rather than to the particular area within the district where there are particular problems and hence a need for additional licensing. The amendment is probing, unless the Conservatives really are going down the route of over-regulation—but who knows where they are going these days?

Robert Syms: On the up.

Matthew Green: I cannot support the amendment, and in the general terms of the need for additional licensing—[Interruption.] I wonder how many times that fire announcement will go off?
 The other amendment in the name of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings touches on the general principle of additional licensing, and I firmly come down on one side of the fence: additional licensing is needed. It gives local authorities the power to deal with specific problems in their area, and we would be happy for that to happen. A good local authority could use it to deal with many exemptions from the Bill's provisions. With so many properties exempt, there is a danger that a local authority that is not remotely interested in providing resources, despite its general duty, will not pick up on additional licensing—but that is local democracy in action. If the local council does not do its job or use additional licensing, the electorate can throw councillors out. 
 The clause gives local authorities the power to consider areas that they want to license additionally, and we strongly support that. Our only concern is that a scheme will always be subject to the Secretary of State's approval. It is rather odd to give local authorities a power, but only if the Secretary of State agrees to its use. It would be much more in the spirit of new localism if the Minister gave the power to local authorities and let them frame it.

Robert Syms: The Bill as it stands allows a housing authority to designate all or part of its area. In some parts of the country, there are local authorities that share a common frontage, for example, in seaside towns. It is not always clear, even to me when I am canvassing, where Bournemouth stops and Poole starts. That problem continues along the coast from Brighton and Hove through to Shoreham or Worthing. There would be no point in designating a mile of frontage in one district to try to improve the quality of HMOs if that allowed other parts of the frontage to be perceived as substandard or difficult. At the point of consultation or when setting out the objectives for an area, is there an element in the Bill to allow adjoining housing authorities to share a common objective of improving housing in a particular area, or is the focus wholly on a district, irrespective of the situation?

Brian Iddon: I rise to speak briefly in support of clause 45. We in Bolton have 22,000 houses that are about 150 years old and not as well constructed as other houses of that age. In the 1960s we had about five general improvement areas, which are now in a state of decay. The problem arises when landlords move in and do not care what tenants they put into their properties. Antisocial
 behaviour develops and the market begins to collapse. That has happened in several areas in Bolton and we have contained it, unlike in Burnley and Salford where there are whole streets of properties that people have walked away from because their value has fallen from about £30,000 to £2,000 or £3,000.
 The measure is necessary to prevent market collapse in such areas. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning recently visited Bolton and saw one street where drug dealers and prostitutes have moved in. The measure is an important tool to control such behaviour.

John Hayes: That is precisely why it may have appeared to the hon. Member for Ludlow that I was sitting on the fence. The truth is that in the vast majority of cases, an agreement with the private sector will be desirable. The local authority working in partnership with private sector will work, but there will be cases in which such a measure will be necessary, for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). It is not fair to assume that all landlords are good and reasonable people, even though the vast majority are.

Brian Iddon: I accept that the vast majority of landlords are reasonable, and we have had a voluntary registration scheme in Bolton for some time. However, it is noticeable that the bad landlords do not join the scheme, so I am keen that the measure is left unamended in the Bill.

Keith Hill: Before coming to the substance of my remarks, I shall respond to some of the questions raised during this useful debate.
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings drew attention to the powers in Conservative legislation that authorised local authorities to take action against badly run properties. As he will know, that legislation conferred simply a power, not a duty, and the record of voluntary registration is mixed to say the least. Evidence of that is in the response to a written question tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on the operation of registration schemes in various authorities, which revealed that about one third of authorities do not engage in any registration scheme. Furthermore, the schemes that do exist are variable in nature: some are simply registration schemes, while others are registration-with-control schemes. That is why we have introduced a mandatory element in the Bill. 
 I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Ludlow, who at this juncture is back into regulatory mode. He said that he would come down firmly in favour of additional licensing and that some local authorities would not be remotely interested in such registration schemes. However, as he rightly said, that is a matter for local democracy, and if a council does not do its job, the electorate can throw it out. I dare say that, in view of the fact that his Liberal Democrat-controlled South Shropshire district council has never implemented a registration scheme of any kind—the 
 Committee will be shocked to hear that—the electorate of the area will draw their own conclusions and take the necessary action in due course. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings on the fact that his local authority has implemented a registration scheme.

John Hayes: This might be an appropriate opportunity, perhaps not for the last time, to inform the Minister that South Holland district council—happily Conservative controlled since 1999—has an exemplary record as a local authority in general and a housing authority in particular. I know that the Minister will want to study its good practice in many different areas relevant to the Bill so that it can be exported to other authorities—Conservative, Labour and even Liberal Democrat.

Keith Hill: I was going to say that we have had enough of this guerrilla warfare. I do not want to undermine the splendid spirit of constructive exchange that has dominated our proceedings so far.

Matthew Green: I should be delighted if the Minister came to south Shropshire and showed me the properties that could be in a licensing scheme. The reality is that in a scattered rural community, there are practically no properties that would fall into the category of HMO. There may be one or two, but I am not aware of any substantial number of properties that could be categorised as such. I am sure that he will do some research on the matter, but he ought to take into account the nature of an area before saying whether a council should incur the unnecessary costs of implementing schemes into which, quite frankly, there are no properties to be brought.

Keith Hill: Methinks the hon. Gentleman protests too much—I think that we have scored a palpable hit. It is up to the hon. Gentleman to justify the derogation of his local authority from its proper responsibilities.I hope to persuade him that his amendment is, in that splendid parliamentary word, otiose. However I shall come on to that in due course.
 The hon. Member for Poole made a sensible point—if I may so without sounding patronising—about local authorities with, as it were, common frontage. That is certainly an issue. The answer to his question on whether local authorities could have common schemes is that if they want such schemes, they can certainly have them. We are aware of the issue of emigration of troublesome parties, who might be landlords or, in terms of selective licensing, tenants. In general terms we are eager that local authorities with common problems should work together. 
 I am extremely grateful for the moral support offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East. I remember with pleasure my day in Bolton looking at both problems and successes. We made a very interesting visit to the Haulgh district, where we saw both problems and evidence of progress. In other areas, we saw what we agreed were wonderful examples of regeneration in communities that were beginning to cohere and progress. It was a memorable day. 
 I take my hon. Friend's point: the large, multi-tenanted properties that we saw in the Haulgh district 
 of Bolton may be obvious candidates for the kind of provision that we are discussing. However, he will be aware that there are other parts of his constituency with different types of tenure and ownership where the selective licensing regime—the Committee is about to come on to that—may be more appropriate. I am grateful for his wise words and support. 
 Clause 45 allows a local authority to designate part or all of its area as subject to additional HMO licensing for specified descriptions of HMOs. That means that a local authority will have discretion to extend the scope of HMO licensing to HMOs that fall outside the scope of the mandatory system. Additional licensing could apply to HMOs that have less than three storeys and/or are occupied by fewer than five people. We know, for example, that some local authorities are likely to use additional licensing to target properties occupied by students that are particularly badly managed. Such properties are often two storeys and are occupied by four people. I wish that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) were here to hear these reassuring words. 
 I am sure that we all want regulation to be targeted on properties where the worst problems exist. Often, those types of property are concentrated in a particular area: for example, as I have said, areas with high numbers of properties let to students. Many local authorities could use their discretion under existing HMO licensing and have applied it only to specific parts of their area.

John Hayes: The Minister has made provision in the Bill to inform people who might be affected by such a designation. The Bill states at clause 45(3)(a) that ''reasonable steps'' must be taken. A large number of people will be affected—landlords, tenants and also other members of the public in the area designated. He said that it might be narrow; it might be a whole estate; it might be a neighbourhood or a single street. What kind of reasonable measures to inform people do the Government have in mind: written notification, notices on lamp posts, advertisements in the local paper?

Keith Hill: We will come later to provisions for exactly such notification. The posting of notices, the sending of publicity materials and advertising in local newspapers are mostly specified as the means of communication with those to be affected by a licensing regime. We are conscious of the fact—this is what I want to say in due course in response to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Ludlow—that in these matters we are dealing not only with landlords and tenants, although they are critical to the process, but with the wider community. Therefore, we are conscious of the need for communication to go to the wider community. The problems with which we are dealing in parts 2 to 4 of the Bill in normal circumstances affect the wider community. We will return to that matter in due course.
 Amendment No. 252 would prevent the targeting of the registration and licensing arrangements to specific areas within a local authority: if an authority felt a need to regulate a certain part of its market, it would 
 have to introduce licensing across the entire area. That would clearly result in unneeded regulation of landlords, and it would mean that local authorities would not be able to focus their efforts where they were really needed. 
 As part of our desire to see regulation used appropriately, before making a designation a local authority must also consider that a significant proportion of the HMOs specified is giving rise to problems for the HMO's occupants or members of the public because of poor management arrangements. When coming to that decision a local authority must consider the extent to which HMO managers in the area have complied with the code of practice approved under clause 171. 
 A local authority must also consult those likely to be affected by the designation and take account of any representations received. Already implicit in the provisions is the requirement for communication as part and parcel of that consultation process. 
 Amendment No. 253, also in the name of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings, proposes that local authorities should consult both tenants and landlords before making a designation. In practice, the amendment would restrict those persons to be consulted for reasons to which I have already referred. Although landlords and tenants are obviously the people who will generally be most affected by a proposal to extend licensing, they are not the only people whose views may matter. Mismanagement of HMOs can have a significant effect on, for example, other local residents. For that reason, we require consultation of people who would have a relevant interest in an additional licensing designation. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accepts that that is the correct approach. The views of landlords and tenants are important, but they are not the sole interested parties. 
 Amendment No. 255 was tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, who is one third of the notional Liberal Democrat representation on the Committee. I hope that I can persuade him that what the Bill provides is not too far away from what the amendment suggests. The amendment would require a local authority to ''take reasonable steps'' to work with landlords, agents and associations before licensing. I am the first to encourage better relationships between landlords and local authorities. Many local authorities have shown that there can be benefits for all concerned in a better working relationship between landlords, tenants and local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East is right to say, however, the problem is often that only the good and willing landlord will engage in such schemes. 
 Clause 46(4)(a) already requires that a designation cannot be made unless other alternatives—for example, voluntary accreditation—have been considered. Therefore, licensing will be used to deal with problems with specific categories of property in areas where alternative solutions alone have not worked or would not work. 
 There is not a great deal of difference between what the Government want to happen and what the amendment would require. Under our proposals, a local authority will be required to consider whether working with landlords would work before going for additional licensing. The amendment suggests that the authority take steps that it considers appropriate to enter into working partnerships with landlords before making a designation. 
 The amendment would have little practical effect. As with other amendments, the hon. Member for Ludlow seems to be worrying that local authorities will not do what is best. Of course, that might well be the case in his local authority, but on the whole we do not want to go too far down the path of chastising that body; I am sure that he will take the message back to south Shropshire. 
 I hope that I have explained clearly the approach that we have taken in the clause and why the amendments are unnecessary. I invite the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings to withdraw the amendment. [Interruption.] I am advised by the silent ones who do not exist that it may be necessary to correct a point made in response to the hon. Gentleman in our debate on clause 193, so may I, in all humility, take this opportunity to correct a misapprehension that he may have picked up from my earlier comments? Additional licensing can extend only to houses falling within the definition of an HMO, so if a converted block has less than one third short-term tenants, it is not an HMO and cannot be subject to licensing, although the provisions of part 1 on the health and safety rating system still apply.

Matthew Green: The interesting piece of inspiration about the earlier amendments that just arrived with the Minister is somewhat concerning. I imagine that he will want to consider that point, because there will be circumstances in which there are sizeable groups of tenanted flats in a large block that is more than two thirds owner-occupied. He may want to consider how he will get round that problem, because I cannot imagine that he intends it to arise. I suspect that he will want to seek further inspiration as to how he can deal with that loophole.
 On amendment No. 255, I am satisfied that clause 46(4)(a) provides that local authorities must have tried something else beforehand. 
 I am a bit concerned that the Minister might want the regulations to apply where there are no properties to be regulated. Perhaps that is why in south Shropshire there is not and has never been a Labour councillor. The last Labour member, who was elected as an independent, was knocked off the council five years ago. The Government have an over-regulatory zeal and want council officers to sit around doing nothing because there is nothing to license. That is clearly the path down which the Minister wants to go.

John Hayes: It seems to me that the Minister has made a persuasive case about licensing. I acknowledged that I was already leaning towards that because of the kind of arguments that were
 powerfully made by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East. Although landlords have concerns about how additional licensing will be applied, there are circumstances in which voluntary arrangements and schemes, such as those that work well in South Holland, are not effective. I am interested in what the Minister said about the patchy nature of those schemes, and in how much that reflects the assiduity of local authorities or is caused by local circumstances, such as those described in Bolton. Bad landlords may tend to concentrate in certain areas, and that may mean that a scheme is unlikely to succeed, even if the local authority is anxious to do its best. Our amendments were designed to probe the Minister, and a good case has been made.
 The amendment that deals with tenants and landlords being consulted was not designed to exclude other people, although, as the Minister suggested, that is the practical implication. It was designed to highlight the fact that landlords must be centrally involved in the process. It is a matter of salience to a wider public: to tenants, because they are vulnerable and are likely to be the ones who suffer, and to landlords. We are anxious to ensure fairness for landlords and tenants; that is the best way to proceed with legislation. However, I accept what the Minister said and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 45 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 46 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47 - Designation needs confirmation or general approval to be effective

Matthew Green: I beg to move amendment No. 256, in
clause 47, page 30, line 41, at end insert— 
 '(2A) The appropriate national authority must issue general guidance on the factors and issues it will have regard to when exercising its powers under subsection (2).'.
 This is the amendment to which I briefly alluded earlier. It is designed to find out why the Minister wants to be able to veto local authorities' attempts to deal with bad landlords, which is what clause 47 does. Amendment No. 256 is not designed to remove the Secretary of State's power, because I know that I would come up against a brick wall—the Minister would resist that because, instead of trusting local people to get rid of councillors, he wants to have the power to jump on local authorities if he does not think they are doing their job correctly. 
 The amendment is designed to ensure that the Secretary of State, or in Wales the National Assembly, issues general guidance on the factors and issues to be considered when the powers under subsection (2) are exercised. We do not want councils to go through a lot of work only to discover that the Secretary of State will not consider their proposals. The amendment would mean that they were given guidance on what proposals might be considered and agreed to by the Secretary of State. We should provide guidance for the sake of local taxpayers, who will be paying for the officers who do the work. If councils had to go 
 through the consultation and work involved in putting an application together, only to come up against a Minister who said that he would never consider their proposal, that would clearly be a waste of time and money. The Minister might say that he would produce guidance anyway, but the amendment would give him the opportunity to do exactly that.

Keith Hill: Clause 47 provides that additional licensing can come into force only if the designation is confirmed by the appropriate national authority or falls within a general approval. I will return to that in due course. That means that before designating an area for additional licensing, the local authority must make a case for doing so and justify its proposal effectively. If the confirming authority is satisfied that the local authority has adequately consulted on its proposed designation and considered any representations, as required under clause 45, there is no reason why any proposal should not be confirmed. The provision will ensure that local authorities are clear about the steps that they need to follow to set up a scheme, which is important to ensure that the views of local people who will be affected by the scheme are properly considered and that schemes will not be continually subjected to legal challenges by landlords or tenants.
 Clause 45(7) also provides that the appropriate national authority may give general approval to any description of designation. When a general approval is given, any such designation comes into force no earlier than three months after it is made. I want to respond in more detail to the hon. Member for Ludlow, but let me remind him and the Committee that those new licensing regimes and, in particular, additional licensing are a new area for us, and we are at the beginning of a process that gives extensive new powers to local authorities. To that extent it seems right that, at least at the beginning of the process, applications for such designations should be subject to scrutiny by the national authority. It is important that the national authority is convinced that the applications are justified. I suggest that such recourse, at least at the beginning of the process, will help to ensure greater consistency in the licensing regimes that are enforced at local level. Throughout our debates, concern has been expressed about problems of inconsistency and mixed messages to landlords within and between specific areas. The measure is a further means of offering reassurance about consistency.

John Hayes: That is an important point and the Minister is wise to make it, because of exactly the situation described by my hon. Friend the Member for Poole, of a landlord or a group of properties that may cross over different local authority areas. It would be highly inappropriate to run different schemes in neighbouring areas where a landlord might have a spread of properties. The consistency for which the hon. Member for Ludlow calls in this part needs, as he indicated, to permeate the whole Bill, exactly because of that kind of consideration.

Keith Hill: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. If such consistency and clarity about the schemes were applied, that would pave the way to general
 approval models being issued for certain kinds of scheme. The provision is potentially very important: it could be used to give general approval for local authorities to extend licensing to certain categories of HMOs. For example—I am sure that this will appeal at least to the hon. Member for Ludlow—it could be applied to properties of three storeys or five people, rather than those of three storeys and five people. It could be used to give general approval for certain local authorities to have additional flexibility to extend HMO licensing without having to apply for a specific consent. We must be sure that the schemes are applied appropriately and that we learn from that process before we consider the issuing of general approvals.
 Amendment No. 256 would require the appropriate national authority to issue guidance on the factors and issues to which it would have regard when considering whether to confirm a designation. I am happy to confirm to the hon. Member for Ludlow that the Government fully intend to issue non-statutory guidance on the matter. He will accept, I hope, that that will offer local authorities the clarity that he seeks. However, it may be useful to remind members of the Committee of what we would broadly expect from local authorities before a confirmation could be made. 
 The Committee will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe pressed me on this point during last Thursday afternoon's sitting, and that I explained briefly how we envisage it working. As I said, we want local authorities to consider carefully their reasons for extending HMO licensing, and the nature and extent of their problem. They will need to consider how their proposals mesh with other policies, such as their general housing strategy or regeneration schemes, and whether alternative measures could deal with the problems that they have identified. Their own capacity to make licensing work is allied to that. 
 Many local authorities will face a considerable task in dealing with the HMOs that have to be licensed under the mandatory regime. A key consideration would therefore be the extent to which they fulfilled their obligations regarding the mandatory regime, both in the number of properties licensed and the process of ensuring that such properties are free from serious hazards under part 1. Above all, they will need to bring together all such considerations in making their case when they consult. Of course, they must listen to the feedback that they obtain from the people consulted and modify their proposals if necessary. 
 Those are the considerations that local authorities will be required to meet, and if the national authority is satisfied that those conditions have been met, approval can be given. As I was happy to confirm to my hon. Friend, we are not trying to say that the centre knows better or knows what is needed to address local problems. We are trying to ensure that licensing is used where it is really needed. I hope that I have explained the Government's position clearly and I implore the hon. Member for Ludlow to withdraw his amendment.

Matthew Green: I have listened to the Minister and am not entirely convinced that he needs those powers. I do not think that clause 47 is necessary. I tabled an amendment to that effect which has not been selected,
 so I will not press the next group of amendments, which relate to the removal of clause 47. I am not convinced by the Minister on this matter, but we are clearly not going to agree. I would prefer to leave it up to local authorities to make decisions on local solutions, rather than taking the Government's one-size-fits-all approach. However, I can do the maths: I am not going to win this one and, although I am unconvinced, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 47 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 48 - Notification requirements relating to designations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

John Hayes: There is a need to elaborate a little on some of the issues that we raised about notification. When we talked about them briefly a few moments ago, the Minister rightly said that they were dealt with under clause 48. It highlights the requirements on the local authority to notify all persons affected in the case of an area that is additionally designated. That is important because several implications might arise from the designation, such as the status of the area, its reputation, how difficult it will be to let property in the area and the incentivising or otherwise of landlords to come into, or leave, the area.
 All such matters are linked partly to the way in which people are informed and consulted about a designation. The Minister said that the public will be made aware of the process by a variety of means. We debated earlier how we defined the ''reasonable steps'' to consult and to inform about people about the designations. I am also interested in how the designation will impact on all the parties concerned when it has been put in place, and in the relationship between the notification process and the outcome. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will explain a little 
 about that because it is an important matter. It is, as he said, a significant new power for local authorities. However, there is some doubt about it among landlords and others. To assuage their fears, the more that we can convince them that the provision will be applied in an appropriate, highly targeted fashion and that everyone will be informed and notified properly, the better the Bill will be received and the more effective it is likely to be in operation.

Keith Hill: Clause 48 contains provisions that deal with the notification requirements when an area is to be subject to additional HMO licensing. It requires that, when a designation is made or confirmed, a notice should be published giving prescribed information about the designation and, if appropriate, its confirmation. The local authority must make available to the public copies of the information and other prescribed information.
 Subsection (2) refers to publishing notices in a prescribed manner. The appropriate national authority is likely to prescribe the newspapers or other publications in, say, a prescribed number of local newspapers or in a national journal in which such notices are published. It should have regard to the other provisions under subsection (2) on how such notices should be itemised and what information they should contain. Some of the details of the provisions relate to the confirmation of schemes of additional HMO licensing by the appropriate national authority. 
 The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings asked several important questions. He was right to emphasise the significance of the new powers and the need for both national and local government to deal with them in the most responsible fashion. I wish to say a word in response to those observations: the fact is that local authorities will have to consider carefully their reasons for seeking additional HMO licensing, such as what problem they are seeking to deal with by wanting additional licensing. 
 It being twenty-five minutes past Eleven o'clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. 
 Adjourned till this day at half-past Two o'clock.